Reactions to Army's Press Conference

[Ted Hoffman]

The issue isn’t necessarily Bouwmeester being gone, it’s about him being forced to stop play mid-season, leading Armstrong to acquire Scandella and to pay him for a role he shouldn’t be playing or paid for.

Bouwmeester may have retired after 2020 regardless, but that would have given Armstrong some time to plan.

Are you implying that Armstrong didn't have a plan in place for what he was going to do with Bouwmeester on February 10, the night before Bouwmeester collapsed on the bench? Because if you are, I'm calling bullshit. Armstrong had intentionally traded for and then extended Faulk, and then intentionally traded Schenn. He'd extended Bouwmeester for a single year in April, 2019 but hadn't extended Bouwmeester in February, 2020. He didn't do any of that and not have a plan.

Do we know the details of it? Obviously no, but I find it difficult to believe that Armstrong didn't have a plan for what he was going to do with Bouwmeester. And, I find it difficult to believe that he had a plan for Bouwmeester, JBo goes down, and he has to scrap that plan and resort to "I have to go get a guy who's kind of clearly not as good, then fork out 4 years, $13.1 million for him while the world is shut down and I have no clue when we're going to get back to playing hockey and what the cap is going to look like, because I need a future replacement for JBo and I need that now." Cause, if that's all the planning he'd done to prepare for when JBo wasn't going to be on this roster, ... oof.

 

[mk80]

Are you implying that Armstrong didn't have a plan in place for what he was going to do with Bouwmeester on February 10, the night before Bouwmeester collapsed on the bench? Because if you are, I'm calling bullshit. Armstrong had intentionally traded for and then extended Faulk, and then intentionally traded Schenn. He'd extended Bouwmeester for a single year in April, 2019 but hadn't extended Bouwmeester in February, 2020. He didn't do any of that and not have a plan.

Do we know the details of it? Obviously no, but I find it difficult to believe that Armstrong didn't have a plan for what he was going to do with Bouwmeester. And, I find it difficult to believe that he had a plan for Bouwmeester, JBo goes down, and he has to scrap that plan and resort to "I have to go get a guy who's kind of clearly not as good, then fork out 4 years, $13.1 million for him while the world is shut down and I have no clue when we're going to get back to playing hockey and what the cap is going to look like, because I need a future replacement for JBo and I need that now." Cause, if that's all the planning he'd done to prepare for when JBo wasn't going to be on this roster, ... oof.

I believe what @Louie the Blue means is that Bouwmeester's medical emergency caused Army to have to pivot quickly, rather than fill that slot on the roster over the upcoming summer.

 

[Majorityof1]

The issue isn’t necessarily Bouwmeester being gone, it’s about him being forced to stop play mid-season, leading Armstrong to acquire Scandella and to pay him for a role he shouldn’t be playing or paid for.

Bouwmeester may have retired after 2020 regardless, but that would have given Armstrong some time to plan.

Yeah, there is a massive difference between panic replacing Bouwmeester with limited options mid-season and then replacing him at some point in a future off-season, where you'll have an entire free agent class or when there are more trade options available than just deadline rentals.

I'm not sure I get your point. We re-signed Scandella in the offseason to a 4 year deal. If there were more, better options in free agency, shouldn't we have pursued them instead of doubling down on Scandella for that long?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I believe what @Louie the Blue means is that Bouwmeester's medical emergency caused Army to have to pivot quickly, rather than fill that slot on the roster over the upcoming summer.

I'm not disputing that Armstrong had to pivot quickly and find a replacement for the rest of the regular season. I'm disputing that Armstrong didn't have a plan in place for what he was going to do to replace Bouwmeester whenever Jay was done playing. Or, that February 11, 2020 screwed up the plan so completely that after trading for Scandella as purportedly a short-term replacement, Armstrong had to sign him to a 4-year extension just 2 months later, with the world shut down.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I'm not sure I get your point. We re-signed Scandella in the offseason to a 4 year deal. If there were more, better options in free agency, shouldn't we have pursued them instead of doubling down on Scandella for that long?

Bouwmeester likely wasn't retiring at the end of 19/20, and I think the trade market that summer or at the draft would've provided better options than Scandella if Bouwmeester was retiring that summer. I'm not going to disagree that Scandella's contract extension wasn't issue, I've always had issue with his contract, mainly the term, and his ability to play the role they wanted him in. His cap hit would've been fine for someone playing the #5 role, but we wanted him to partner with Parayko on the shutdown pair.

 

[Celtic Note]

Re: Boston - the Bruins did have 2 top-5 picks on the Cup-winning roster. One was Tyler Seguin (2nd, 2010) who was Toronto's pick acquired when the Bruins traded Phil Kessel, the other was Blake Wheeler (4th, 2004) who was taken by Phoenix but signed as a FA by Boston in 2008 when Wheeler left college and didn't sign with the Coyotes. Neither one was really a product of the Bruins "being bad" and getting high picks as a result.

That said, Boston did have 2 top-5 picks in the ~15 years leading up to 2011: Joe Thornton (1st, 1997) and Phil Kessel (5th, 2006) but neither one was on that Cup-winning roster. Thornton had been gone 5 years, and once you go through that trade tree you finally end up with Andrew Ference who was on the 2011 roster. So ... helped, I guess, but as a 2nd-pairing defensemen with a lot of other wasted pieces along the way.

I don't know if that changes anything in the above notes, but my initial reaction on seeing Boston there was really? and when I looked at things it was oh, yeah ... that did happen.

I think Boston is the only example/model the Blues can point to that shows not bottoming out can yield a Cup in the ways we are thinking. Vegas did it too, but they used the expansion draft as a significant source of asset accumulation that we cannot and they are able to do things with contracts that we can’t or won’t do.

That leaves Boston as the single example. It’s a very slim chance that it can be replicated. Even more slim than getting high picks to build a Cup winner.

 

[Celtic Note]

JBo going down like he did is a rare thing. It’s not one I would expect any GM to have a detailed plan for in their back pocket. Army felt he had to find a stopgap. I didn’t love Scandella being that guy, but its not a move that I take major issue with other than it was an overpay. The issue was doubling down on a guy that wasn’t close to filling the hole (and giving out a larger contract than was warranted). This is the same problem with signing Krug to fill the gaping hole we had on defense. It was a bandaid for something that needed stitches or outright surgery. Or insert some better analogy.

 

[joe galiba]

Because rebuilding a team is way more than just scouting and drafting.

And for as shitty as we were in 22/23, we still weren't close to bottom 5 bad. To get to bottom 5 bad, you are likely trading Parayko, so that the team doesn't have a proper shutdown pairing, getting rid of Binnington, so that he can't carry the team on his back for stretches, and probably Buchnevich too. I don't think the Buchnevich one really matters that much as far as the long-term risk, I think we should move him.

If we move Binnington, this could go a couple different ways. Hofer could perform at the same level he did as a backup, and like Binnington, he'll prevent us from being a bottom 5 team. The other direction is you just completely f*** his development, and now it's up to Ellis or Zherenko. I'd rather not f*** up the development of a promising young goalie.

We can move Parayko, and replace him with some random 2nd pair quality vet to eat some minutes. Unless we draft a Petro level talent, that's going to be a really shitty environment to develop any defenseman in. That's what the risk is in tanking, it's not about whether the scouts can do their job, it's if the draft that we happen to get a top pick in, happens to have the player available that would be worth being that bad for. And if you don't get someone that will develop regardless of the environment they are in, then you are in trouble. We were really f***ing lucky that Atlanta took Bogosian. Imagine if our #1 and #4 picks were Johnson and Bogosian/Schenn, that's what the risk is.

You seem to be under the assumption that gutting the team to the point of being top 5 pick quality won't have a significant impact on the development of current young players and those picks. Or the possibility of the years of being a top 5 pick team, those drafts just being dogshit.

2012 NHL draft

 

[Sgt Schultz]

I'm not disputing that Armstrong had to pivot quickly and find a replacement for the rest of the regular season. I'm disputing that Armstrong didn't have a plan in place for what he was going to do to replace Bouwmeester whenever Jay was done playing. Or, that February 11, 2020 screwed up the plan so completely that after trading for Scandella as purportedly a short-term replacement, Armstrong had to sign him to a 4-year extension just 2 months later, with the world shut down.

This is where I am with JBo. It had an impact on the rest of the 2019-20 season, but even if he came back the following season, he was not a long-term answer. That's not an editorial on him, but he was 36 . Exactly how much longer would we plan on him being in the long-term picture? Maybe he becomes a Chara and plays until he is 72, but you can't count on that. If he does and he is effective, it is a bonus.

My problem is that in the time that has gone by, we didn't replace Petro (a tall order, admittedly) nor did we replace JBo. We filled their roster spots, but not their roles and I am not convinced we have a plan to do so to this day. I understand why we didn't in February 2020 and even to some degree in 2020-21, but it has been four years.

@Celtic Note 's statement "It was a bandaid for something that needed stitches or outright surgery" sums it up, and we are still buying bandaids.

 

[bleedblue1223]

2012 NHL draft

Or Rangers with Lafreniere and Kakko. They are a contender, buy not because of those picks.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I think Boston is the only example/model the Blues can point to that shows not bottoming out can yield a Cup in the ways we are thinking. Vegas did it too, but they used the expansion draft as a significant source of asset accumulation that we cannot and they are able to do things with contracts that we can’t or won’t do.

That leaves Boston as the single example. It’s a very slim chance that it can be replicated. Even more slim than getting high picks to build a Cup winner.

The crazy thing is that Boston has missed on some valuable picks and squandered other valuable assets at times. They’re a good model to emulate, but they’ve made visible (and self-evidently recoverable) mistakes.

 

[Louie the Blue]

Are you implying that Armstrong didn't have a plan in place for what he was going to do with Bouwmeester on February 10, the night before Bouwmeester collapsed on the bench? Because if you are, I'm calling bullshit. Armstrong had intentionally traded for and then extended Faulk, and then intentionally traded Schenn. He'd extended Bouwmeester for a single year in April, 2019 but hadn't extended Bouwmeester in February, 2020. He didn't do any of that and not have a plan.

Do we know the details of it? Obviously no, but I find it difficult to believe that Armstrong didn't have a plan for what he was going to do with Bouwmeester. And, I find it difficult to believe that he had a plan for Bouwmeester, JBo goes down, and he has to scrap that plan and resort to "I have to go get a guy who's kind of clearly not as good, then fork out 4 years, $13.1 million for him while the world is shut down and I have no clue when we're going to get back to playing hockey and what the cap is going to look like, because I need a future replacement for JBo and I need that now." Cause, if that's all the planning he'd done to prepare for when JBo wasn't going to be on this roster, ... oof.

No, that is not what I'm implying at all.

I'm implying that Armstrong had no plan to immediately replace Bouwmeester in-season or for at least one other season. If he wanted to or had shown an inclination to, he would have acquired Scandella a month prior when he was traded for less to Montreal or a player of similar ilk than trading for him a week after Bouwmeester went down.

I don't blame him for not having an immediate plan to replace Bouwmeester in-season. I do blame him for not having a plan to replace him long-term, or if he did have a plan, it was absolutely impulsive. There was no need to extend Scandella until he hit UFA in October.

I believe what @Louie the Blue means is that Bouwmeester's medical emergency caused Army to have to pivot quickly, rather than fill that slot on the roster over the upcoming summer.

Correct. The Scandella trade in itself wasn't bad and can be easily defended given the circumstances. I do not see how the contract can be defended given that Armstrong didn't seek out other alternatives and the uncertainty given Pietrangelo.

I'm not sure I get your point. We re-signed Scandella in the offseason to a 4 year deal. If there were more, better options in free agency, shouldn't we have pursued them instead of doubling down on Scandella for that long?

This is inaccurate. He was extended April 16th, 2020, which was during the season pause and before the bubble. This was after he played a handful of games. For reference, Krug signed with the Blues on October 9th, 2020. Armstrong didn't even let Scandella reach free agency or wait until the offseason.

 

[Louie the Blue]

I'm not disputing that Armstrong had to pivot quickly and find a replacement for the rest of the regular season. I'm disputing that Armstrong didn't have a plan in place for what he was going to do to replace Bouwmeester whenever Jay was done playing. Or, that February 11, 2020 screwed up the plan so completely that after trading for Scandella as purportedly a short-term replacement, Armstrong had to sign him to a 4-year extension just 2 months later, with the world shut down.

And this is where we disagree.

In my opinion, I do not think Armstrong had any immediate desire to replace Bouwmeester. At the time when he collapsed, he was 36 (soon to be 37), on a 1 year deal for the defending champions after being a large contributor to the PO success. If he wanted to replace Bouwmeester, he could have let him walk after 2019, but he didn't. I think he would have likely viewed Bouwmeester as a regular defenseman through 2020, with the potential he'd have to be replaced before or after 2021.

I think Armstrong impulsively extended Scandella for reasons I do not understand. Acquiring Scandella and extending him should have been viewed as two independent actions, which I do not think occurred here.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

No, that is not what I'm implying at all.

I'm implying that Armstrong had no plan to immediately replace Bouwmeester in-season or for at least one other season. If he wanted to or had shown an inclination to, he would have acquired Scandella a month prior when he was traded for less to Montreal or a player of similar ilk than trading for him a week after Bouwmeester went down.

I don't blame him for not having an immediate plan to replace Bouwmeester in-season. I do blame him for not having a plan to replace him long-term, or if he did have a plan, it was absolutely impulsive. There was no need to extend Scandella until he hit UFA in October.

I'm in agreement with all of this, especially that "no need to extend Scandella" part, and I've been a longtime critic of that. And I'm not disagreeing per se with your latest comment, I'm kind of throwing it out more as a "devil's advocate" thing.

Which gets me back to: it seems very ... strange? Inconsistent? Illogical? To think that Armstrong had a plan in place with he traded for Faulk and immediately extended him, then extended Schenn shortly after, but had no long-term plan to replace Bouwmeester. It also seems weird that trading for and shortly after extending Scandella was the entire plan. And/or, that everything shutting down in March, 2020 so completely wrecked whatever plan he had for replacing Bouwmeester that he had to sign Scandella to a 4-year extension with the world locked down and considerable uncertainty about future finances.

Because if Armstrong didn't have a plan in place for replacing Bouwmeester, and trading for Scandella and then extending him a month into the shutdown was all the more planning that took place, .... that would be a damning indictment of Armstrong's vision, IMO, and it should cause people to ask more questions.

 

[Louie the Blue]

I'm in agreement with all of this, especially that "no need to extend Scandella" part, and I've been a longtime critic of that. And I'm not disagreeing per se with your latest comment, I'm kind of throwing it out more as a "devil's advocate" thing.

Which gets me back to: it seems very ... strange? Inconsistent? Illogical? To think that Armstrong had a plan in place with he traded for Faulk and immediately extended him, then extended Schenn shortly after, but had no long-term plan to replace Bouwmeester. It also seems weird that trading for and shortly after extending Scandella was the entire plan. And/or, that everything shutting down in March, 2020 so completely wrecked whatever plan he had for replacing Bouwmeester that he had to sign Scandella to a 4-year extension with the world locked down and considerable uncertainty about future finances.

Because if Armstrong didn't have a plan in place for replacing Bouwmeester, and trading for Scandella and then extending him a month into the shutdown was all the more planning that took place, .... that would be a damning indictment of Armstrong's vision, IMO, and it should cause people to ask more questions.

I agree, but it also isn't the first time this has happened where it seems like he doesn't have a vision or plan. A great example would be the goaltending situation with Halak, Elliott, and Miller as basically him not having a plan.

Armstrong deserves criticism, he hasn't been perfect, but it seems like he has a vision currently. Whether it works or not is a different story. But there's a reason why players were moved in season in 2023, why guys like Kapanen, Blais, and Vrana were kept (even if Vrana didn't work out), why Hayes was acquired.

I think Armstrong knows the Blues don't have a chance at making a meaningful run for at least another season, if not 2, so there's no need to invest serious long-term commitment to certain types of players while also still needing to ice a roster without impacting younger player development.

It'll be telling whatever happens with Buchnevich. If he leaves in 2025, without being extended or traded, I will be completely wrong.

Scandella and Kapanen (though I know he was a 1 year solution as players start coming up from Springfield) being off the books should help some with regards to addressing the defense in a meaningful way, but it'll be hard to address it fully unless Krug is moved or a top pairing caliber D is acquired via trade.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I remember Bouwmeester talking about how he’d promised his wife he wouldn’t play too much longer. I think he said something like “when I’m 40”, but it was not a specific cut off.

He seemed content to go year by year. I had the impression he and Armstrong had a good relationship and both parties were fine with year to year one year deals.

I expect he would have signed for another 1 year deal at least, but you could also see the end was not far off. I’m glad he didn’t die in Anaheim.

I’d like to see who the top pair will be 5 years from now. If you could show me a couple effective players in their primes, guys who SHOULD be in a top pair, I’d have little quibbling with how you go about getting the pieces to fill out the defense.

 

[Reality Czech]

This is where I am with JBo. It had an impact on the rest of the 2019-20 season, but even if he came back the following season, he was not a long-term answer. That's not an editorial on him, but he was 36 . Exactly how much longer would we plan on him being in the long-term picture? Maybe he becomes a Chara and plays until he is 72, but you can't count on that. If he does and he is effective, it is a bonus.

My problem is that in the time that has gone by, we didn't replace Petro (a tall order, admittedly) nor did we replace JBo. We filled their roster spots, but not their roles and I am not convinced we have a plan to do so to this day. I understand why we didn't in February 2020 and even to some degree in 2020-21, but it has been four years.

@Celtic Note 's statement "It was a bandaid for something that needed stitches or outright surgery" sums it up, and we are still buying bandaids.

The phrase has a nice ring to it but it feels like revisionist history to me. The Blues were in much better shape at the time than people are making it seem. We followed up our championship with another strong season that was interrupted by the stupid COVID bubble. The year after that we took a step back during the wacky shortened COVID season but followed it up in 21-22 with a .665 points percentage and a Binnington injury away from giving the eventual champs a serious run for their money in the playoffs. Faulk and Krug were one of the most productive D pairs in the entire league and few people were clamoring for them to be traded at the time.

It's really only the last two years that we've struggled but people keep overlooking the flat cap and how difficult it was for GMs to make major moves. I'm not sure what moves Army could have made to guarantee a significantly better outcome during that time. I don't really see anyone giving specifics about what Army should have done. It's mostly people just saying "he should have done something" as if there was some magic solution to all of our issues.

Sure we had a shitty year last year but it ended with trades of Vladi and ROR that helped restock our prospect pool. If we had been in the playoffs maybe both walk for nothing and you can subtract Stenberg and Lindstein from our future. Or we get a lower pick and don't end up with Dvorsky. It's easy to say we should have done x or y in retrospect but no one knows if those hypothetical moves would have made us better off or not.

 

[Brian39]

I'm not sure I get your point. We re-signed Scandella in the offseason to a 4 year deal. If there were more, better options in free agency, shouldn't we have pursued them instead of doubling down on Scandella for that long?

April of 2020 wasn't really the offseason.

It was during the COVID shutdown. The league had already postponed the draft and it had become very clear that free agency was not going to begin on July 1. All parties were aggressively working to make sure that there could be playoffs and I think everyone agreed that free agency wasn't going to happen until after those playoffs.

Free agency was pushed to October of 2020 (we extended Scandella in April and then joined the playoff bubble in July of 2020.

We can talk about whether we should or should not have waited until free agency to pursue other options, but Scandella was a mid-season extension.

 

[Brian39]

Because if Armstrong didn't have a plan in place for replacing Bouwmeester, and trading for Scandella and then extending him a month into the shutdown was all the more planning that took place, .... that would be a damning indictment of Armstrong's vision, IMO, and it should cause people to ask more questions.

It seems like every one of your posts on this subject relies on the premise that Army had no idea whether J-Bo would be playing in 2020/21 and thus 'didn't have a plan.'

"I'm not spending assets and cap space on J-Bo's eventual replacement before I need to" is not a lack of a plan. We were very much capped out in 2020 and very much still in a Cup window. Allocate assets to the immediate roster is not a lack of a plan.

The fact that J-Bo hadn't signed a deal isn't an indication that there was no plan. He wasn't even eligible to sign an extension until 1/1/20 and he collapsed mid-game 6 weeks later. Weeks after the medical event, he was still considering attempting an NHL return. There were articles written through the year that he and Army were comfortable going year-to-year for the rest of his career. As an organnization, we had incentive to see what type of rollovers we might carry into 2020/21 before figuring out whether J-Bo should get all salary or structuring a deal to minimize his 2020/21 cap hit and rollover a bonus to 2021/22.

None of us know where Army and J-Bo were in negotiations, but there was a pretty overwhelming consensus that J-Bo was going to finish his career in STL and was extremely likely to keep playing beyond the 2019/20 season.

Not seeking to allocate current resources for his future replacement just isn't a lack of a plan. There is plenty to criticize about the way the blueline got to where it is today. Army not being prepared to permanently replace J-Bo in early 2020 isn't close to that list.

 

[Fez Whatley]

The phrase has a nice ring to it but it feels like revisionist history to me. The Blues were in much better shape at the time than people are making it seem. We followed up our championship with another strong season that was interrupted by the stupid COVID bubble. The year after that we took a step back during the wacky shortened COVID season but followed it up in 21-22 with a .665 points percentage and a Binnington injury away from giving the eventual champs a serious run for their money in the playoffs. Faulk and Krug were one of the most productive D pairs in the entire league and few people were clamoring for them to be traded at the time.

It's really only the last two years that we've struggled but people keep overlooking the flat cap and how difficult it was for GMs to make major moves. I'm not sure what moves Army could have made to guarantee a significantly better outcome during that time. I don't really see anyone giving specifics about what Army should have done. It's mostly people just saying "he should have done something" as if there was some magic solution to all of our issues.

Sure we had a shitty year last year but it ended with trades of Vladi and ROR that helped restock our prospect pool. If we had been in the playoffs maybe both walk for nothing and you can subtract Stenberg and Lindstein from our future. Or we get a lower pick and don't end up with Dvorsky. It's easy to say we should have done x or y in retrospect but no one knows if those hypothetical moves would have made us better off or not.

To add to this and try to bring in some more optimism, it seems like Monty was a major loss. A new coach in his mold might really strengthen the faulk krug pair. I'm not sure how I feel about that because I've not been a fan of either for a while now, but there could be something to this. If nothing more it could increase their value I guess.

 

[Thallis]

The phrase has a nice ring to it but it feels like revisionist history to me. The Blues were in much better shape at the time than people are making it seem. We followed up our championship with another strong season that was interrupted by the stupid COVID bubble. The year after that we took a step back during the wacky shortened COVID season but followed it up in 21-22 with a .665 points percentage and a Binnington injury away from giving the eventual champs a serious run for their money in the playoffs. Faulk and Krug were one of the most productive D pairs in the entire league and few people were clamoring for them to be traded at the time.

It's really only the last two years that we've struggled but people keep overlooking the flat cap and how difficult it was for GMs to make major moves. I'm not sure what moves Army could have made to guarantee a significantly better outcome during that time. I don't really see anyone giving specifics about what Army should have done. It's mostly people just saying "he should have done something" as if there was some magic solution to all of our issues.

Sure we had a shitty year last year but it ended with trades of Vladi and ROR that helped restock our prospect pool. If we had been in the playoffs maybe both walk for nothing and you can subtract Stenberg and Lindstein from our future. Or we get a lower pick and don't end up with Dvorsky. It's easy to say we should have done x or y in retrospect but no one knows if those hypothetical moves would have made us better off or not.

The way they played during that "wacky Covid shortened season" is exactly what we've been seeing for the past 2 years. That makes 3 of the past 4 years we've been an intensely mediocre team and the outlier, that 21-22 team, had a top 3 shooting % in the modern era while the underlyings looked basically exactly the same as the other 3. It was no more real than last year's Seattle team that won under the same circumstances and beat Colorado in the playoffs.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

It seems like every one of your posts on this subject relies on the premise that Army had no idea whether J-Bo would be playing in 2020/21 and thus 'didn't have a plan.'

It seems odd that you think I think that, especially when I've stated that the idea of Armstrong have no plan is a "devil's advocate" position.

Try starting from there, then see how much your response changes. Because, it should.

 

[Louie the Blue]

The way they played during that "wacky Covid shortened season" is exactly what we've been seeing for the past 2 years. That makes 3 of the past 4 years we've been an intensely mediocre team and the outlier, that 21-22 team, had a top 3 shooting % in the modern era while the underlyings looked basically exactly the same as the other 3. It was no more real than last year's Seattle team that won under the same circumstances and beat Colorado in the playoffs.

The defensemen have been a problem collectively as a group, but I don't think it's fair to solely place the blame on the regression on them.

I think defensive play by the forwards as a whole has declined - part of that has to do with aging and not replacing forwards immediately with comparable players (e.g., Perron, Schenn, ROR who is still good defensively but not as good as his prime, Steen, Barbashev, Bozak).

And also, I think 2020-2021 was the lowest of low end projections for the defense. Parayko did not have a good year that year, IIRC. Not saying it's been good in 2021-2022, 2022-2023, and 2023-2024, but I'd argue Leddy being added improves the defense a bit.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

It seems odd that you think I think that, especially when I've stated that the idea of Armstrong have no plan is a "devil's advocate" position.

Try starting from there, then see how much your response changes. Because, it should.

I don't understand the point of your posts if you're not representing your actual opinions.

 

[Brian39]

I think Boston is the only example/model the Blues can point to that shows not bottoming out can yield a Cup in the ways we are thinking. Vegas did it too, but they used the expansion draft as a significant source of asset accumulation that we cannot and they are able to do things with contracts that we can’t or won’t do.

That leaves Boston as the single example. It’s a very slim chance that it can be replicated. Even more slim than getting high picks to build a Cup winner.

I'd pushback on this. I don't agree that you can't accumulate equivalent/comparable assets to what they got in the expansion draft via a non-teardown-to-the-basement rebuild. They acquired a lot of assets, but you have to consider that they also didn't have any prospect pool whatsoever when they got them. We obviously can't use an expansion draft, but I believe that a re-tool type process can absolutely yield a similar amount/quality of prospects/picks and roster players.

Here are the picks Vegas acquired via expansion draft (taking picks to select/avoid specific players and then subsequent deals where they flipped a guy they selected for picks in the next few weeks).

2017: 13th overall, 15th overall, 45th overall, a 5th round pick, and a 6th round pick

2018: 4th round pick, 4th round pick

2019: 2nd round pick, 2nd round pick, 3rd round pick, 3rd round pick, 5th round pick

2020: 2nd round pick, 2nd round pick

They also acquired 21 year old Shea Theodore (former 26th overall pick) and 20 year old Alex Tuch (former 1st round pick) in direct expansion draft deals.

That's a lot of assets. But without an existing prospect pool, that didn't start them with some insane war chest. That gave them a couple 20-22 year old 1st round prospects, two extra early-mid 1st round picks for 2017 and then a bundle of 2nd rounders a few years out.

They got some good players too, but I wouldn't say that the core they got was more appealing than our current core. I think Thomas is a more valuable asset (either for trade or building around) than any roster player they drafted. I think Buch is a better player (and likely better trade asset) than any roster player they drafted. Parayko is a better player than any NHL-aged D man they drafted. Opinions vary on Kyrou, but he is at least on par with the best of the guys they drafted.

They drafted some supplemental guys like Haula, Schmidt, Collin Miller, etc that were eventually moved for moderate assets, but are those guys any different than the Leddy, Hayes, Saad, Faulk, etc in our lineup that will eventually be flipped for moderate assets?

They came out of the draft with Fleury and no heir apparent in net. Is that really a better situation than Binner/Hofer with Zherenko lurking in the minors.

Vegas did a great job in their expansion draft, but it isn't like they came out of it with a lineup of stars, a top end prospect pool, and a boatload of future picks. they completely botched the 6th overall pick (Cody Glass) and traded him 4 years later for redemption project Nolan Patrick who retired after playing just 25 games for the Knights.

I don't think the fact that they got all those assets at once negates that you can accumulate a similar quality core and futures war chest over a several year period without an expansion draft.

I'd take our current prospect pool (and upcoming draft capital) over the prospect pool (and upcoming draft capital) Vegas had after the expansion draft.

I'd take Thomas, Kyrou, Parayko, and Binner today over the 2017 versions of Karlsson, Marchessault, Smith, and Fleury. I can see an argument the other way, but Thomas tips the scale for me.

I'd take the supporting cast of Vegas (and their moderate trade value) over ours for sure, but I don't think that the eventual trades of these guys is what fueled the success they have had.

The guts of their Cup team was built using the quantity/quality of futures assets we have drafted (and have the picks to continue to draft) in the coming years.

They got their #1 center 4 years after the expansion draft by moving an actualized Tuch, the player they drafted with their own 2019 1st round pick and then future picks. Those guys weren't made expendable by a boatload of assets obtained in the expansion draft. We should have the assets to make such a deal in the future.

They got their #1 D in UFA.

They got their #2 center for a 5th round pick.

They got their #1 winger for Brannstrom (a 1st obtained in expansion), a guy they signed as a UFA, and a future 2nd.

They traded a 4th for Hill and signed Thompson as an undrafted UFA.

Now they have mortgaged way more futures to bring in non-rental Hertl and then a rent-to-extend Hanifin to try and extend the window.

Vegas has put on an absolute clinic in building a team via trades and free agency. I genuinely don't believe that their expansion draft haul was so good that other teams couldn't replicate it. Any team that can accumulate a moderate amount of surplus futures assets should be able to make the types of moves they did.